Gastrointestinal Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants: A Large Population-Based Study

Detection of Gastrointestinal Bleeding With Large Language Models to Aid Quality Improvement and Appropriate Reimbursement

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Early identification and accurate characterization of overt gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) enables opportunities to optimize patient management and ensures appropriately risk-adjusted coding for claims-based quality measures and reimbursement. Recent advancements in generative artificial intelligence, particularly large language models (LLMs), create opportunities to support accurate identification of clinical conditions. In this study, we present the first LLM-based pipeline for identification of overt GIB in the electronic health record (EHR). We demonstrate 2 clinically relevant applications: the automated detection of recurrent bleeding and appropriate reimbursement coding for patients with GIB.

METHODS

Development of the LLM-based pipeline was performed on 17,712 nursing notes from 1108 patients who were hospitalized with acute GIB and underwent endoscopy in the hospital from 2014 to 2023. The pipeline was used to train an EHR-based machine learning model for detection of recurrent bleeding on 546 patients presenting to 2 hospitals and externally validated on 562 patients presenting to 4 different hospitals. The pipeline was used to develop an algorithm for appropriate reimbursement coding on 7956 patients who underwent endoscopy in the hospital from 2019 to 2023.

RESULTS

The LLM-based pipeline accurately detected melena (positive predictive value, 0.972; sensitivity, 0.900), hematochezia (positive predictive value, 0.900; sensitivity, 0.908), and hematemesis (positive predictive value, 0.859; sensitivity, 0.932). The EHR-based machine learning model identified recurrent bleeding with area under the curve of 0.986, sensitivity of 98.4%, and specificity of 97.5%. The reimbursement coding algorithm resulted in an average per-patient reimbursement increase of $1299 to $3247 with a total difference of $697,460 to $1,743,649.

CONCLUSIONS

An LLM-based pipeline can robustly detect overt GIB in the EHR with clinically relevant applications in detection of recurrent bleeding and appropriate reimbursement coding.

Apixaban-Induced Esophagitis Dissecans Superficialis-Case Report and Literature Review

Novel direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are prescribed worldwide in the treatment of non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Adverse reactions have been reported following the use of DOACs. One notable trend in the literature is the growing number of reported cases of esophagitis dissecans superficialis (EDS) generated by DOAC use. We hereby report the case of a 73-year-old woman who presented to the hospital with asthenia, dysphagia, and melena two days prior to admission. The patient had taken apixaban due to non-valvular paroxysmal atrial fibrillation for a few weeks. The biological panel showed moderate anemia with a hemoglobin level of 7.7 g/dL Apixaban-induced EDS was diagnosed by the characteristic endoscopic findings. The patient received treatment with a proton pump inhibitor (pantoprazole) in a double dose. Also, an iron treatment was recommended for a period of six months. The follow-up endoscopy at one month confirmed the healing of the esophageal lesions. The case was discussed with the cardiologist. The first anticoagulant treatment proposed after discharge was a vitamin K antagonist (acenocumarol) but the patient refused this medication and thus it was decided to initiate rivaroxaban. Although DOACs have demonstrated their efficacy in the prevention and treatment of stroke and thromboembolism among the aging demographic, cases of DOAC-induced EDS will continue to pose numerous challenges for physicians worldwide.

Exploring bleeding in oral anticoagulant users: assessing incidence by indications and risk factors in the entire nationwide cohort

Background

Oral anticoagulants (OACs) are essential for the prevention and treatment of thromboembolic disorders, but bleeding, a major complication, can have a fatal impact on the patient's treatment.

Objectives

We aimed to estimate the nationwide, real-world incidence rate of bleeding in patients taking OACs and confirm the incidence by indications and risk factors.

Methods

This cross-sectional study identified OAC users from April 1 to December 31, in both 2019 and 2020, using the HIRA-NPS database. The primary outcome variables were the incidence rate of major bleeding events during OAC treatment and within 30 days of treatment discontinuation. We estimated the adjusted incidence rate ratio (aIRR) in subpopulations.

Results

Among 18,822 OAC users, the incidence rate of major bleeding was 27.9 (95% CI: 24.6-31.5) per 1,000 person-years. The incidence rate of major bleeding was higher in patients with a bleeding history, with an aIRR of 11.51; those at high bleeding risk (HAS-BLED score ≥3), with an aIRR of 1.51; those with high CCI scores ≥3, with an aIRR of 1.88; and those with liver disease, with an aIRR of 1.41. For indications, compared to patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), the aIRR of major bleeding was significantly higher at an aIRR of 2.35 in patients undergoing VTE treatment. Patients with ischemic stroke showed a higher incidence of major bleeding with an aIRR of 2.13 than NVAF patients. The aIRR of major bleeding in the oral anticoagulant group, compared to the matched control group, was 2.25 (95% CI: 1.93-2.63).

Conclusion

These findings may be useful for implementing strategies to improve the evaluation and management of anticoagulation-related bleeding.

Real-World Bleeding Risk of Anticoagulant and Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs Combotherapy versus Anticoagulant Monotherapy

Background/Aims

The incidence of acute gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) increases with the utilization of anticoagulant and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). This study aimed to compare the risk of GIB between anticoagulant and NSAIDs combotherapy and anticoagulant monotherapy in real-world practice.

Methods

We investigated the relative risk of GIB in individuals newly prescribed anticoagulant and NSAIDs combination therapy and that in individuals newly prescribed anticoagulant monotherapy at three hospitals using "common data model." Cox proportional hazard models and Kaplan-Meier estimation were employed for risk comparison after propensity score matching.

Results

A comprehensive analysis of 2,951 matched pairs showed that patients who received anticoagulant and NSAIDs combousers exhibited a significantly higher risk of GIB than those who received anticoagulant monousers (hazard ratio [HR], 1.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.30 to 2.12; p<0.001). The risk of GIB associated with anticoagulant and NSAIDs combination therapy was also significantly higher than that associated with anticoagulant monotherapy in patients aged >65 years (HR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.15 to 2.03; p=0.003) and >75 years (HR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.23 to 2.90; p=0.003). We also found that the risk of GIB was significantly higher in the patients who received anticoagulant and NSAIDs combousers than that in patients who received anticoagulant monousers in both male (p=0.016) and female cohorts (p=0.010).

Conclusions

The risk of GIB is significantly higher in patients who receive anticoagulant and NSAIDs combotherapy than that in patients who receive anticoagulant monotherapy. In addition, the risk of GIB associated with anticoagulant and NSAIDs combotherapy was much higher in individuals aged >75 years. Therefore, physicians should be more aware of pay more attention to the risk of GIB when they prescribe anticoagulant and NSAIDs.

To treat or not to treat: a comparative effectiveness analysis of oral anticoagulant outcomes among U.S. nursing home residents with atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Nursing home residents with atrial fibrillation are at high risk for ischemic stroke, but most are not treated with anticoagulants. This study compared the effectiveness and safety between oral anticoagulant (OAC) users and non-users.

METHODS

We conducted a new-user retrospective cohort study by using Minimum Data Set 3.0 assessments linked with Medicare claims. The participants were Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with atrial fibrillation residing in US nursing homes between 2011 and 2016, aged ≥ 65 years. The primary outcomes were occurrence of an ischemic stroke or systemic embolism (effectiveness), occurrence of intracranial or extracranial bleeding (safety) and net clinical outcome (effectiveness or safety outcomes). Secondary outcomes included total mortality and a net clinical and mortality outcome. Cox proportional hazards and Fine and Grey models estimated multivariable adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) and sub-distribution hazard ratios (sHRs).

RESULTS

Outcome rates were low (effectiveness: OAC: 0.86; non-users: 1.73; safety: OAC: 2.26; non-users: 1.75 (per 100 person-years)). OAC use was associated with a lower rate of the effectiveness outcome (sHR: 0.69; 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.61-0.77), higher rates of the safety (sHR: 1.70; 95% CI: 1.58-1.84) and net clinical outcomes (sHR: 1.20; 95% CI: 1.13-1.28) lower rate of all-cause mortality outcome (sHR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.59-0.61), and lower rate of the net clinical and mortality outcome (sHR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.59-0.61). Warfarin users, but not DOAC users, had a higher rate of the net clinical outcome versus OAC non-users.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results support the benefits of treatment with OACs to prevent ischemic strokes and increase longevity, while highlighting the need to weigh apparent benefits against elevated risk for bleeding. Results were consistent with net favorability of DOACs versus warfarin.

Evaluation and treatment of gastrointestinal bleeding in patients taking anticoagulants presenting to the emergency department

This manuscript is a consensus document of an expert panel on the Evaluation and Treatment of Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Patients Taking Anticoagulants Presenting to the Emergency Department, sponsored by the American College of Emergency Physicians.

Utility of prophylactic clipping after colorectal cold snare polypectomy in patients on oral antithrombotic agents

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

There is no consensus on the effectiveness of prophylactic clipping after colonic cold snare polypectomy (CSP). This study aimed to evaluate the utility of prophylactic clipping in preventing delayed bleeding (DB) after colorectal CSP in patients on antithrombotic agents.

METHODS

We retrospectively recruited consecutive patients on antithrombotic agents who underwent colorectal CSP in Chiba University Hospital. The DB rate was compared between patients with and without prophylactic clipping.

RESULTS

The study included 133 patients (422 polyps) requiring prophylactic clipping and 85 patients (282 polyps) not requiring prophylactic clipping. There were no significant differences in DB and hematochezia rates between the groups. By weighted logistic regression analysis, the odds ratio of hematochezia was 0.557 (95% confidence interval, 0.225-1.378; P = .205) in patients without clipping compared to those with clipping.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic clipping may not be necessary to prevent DB after colorectal CSP in patients on antithrombotic agents.

Active surveillance pharmacovigilance for Clostridioides difficile infection and gastrointestinal bleeding: an analytic framework based on case-control studies

BACKGROUND

Active surveillance pharmacovigilance is an emerging approach to identify medications with unanticipated effects. We previously developed a framework called pharmacopeia-wide association studies (PharmWAS) that limits false positive medication associations through high-dimensional confounding adjustment and set enrichment. We aimed to assess the transportability and generalizability of the PharmWAS framework by using medical claims data to reproduce known medication associations with Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) or gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB).

METHODS

We conducted case-control studies using Optum's de-identified Clinformatics Data Mart Database of individuals enrolled in large commercial and Medicare Advantage health plans in the United States. Individuals with CDI (from 2010 to 2015) or GIB (from 2010 to 2021) were matched to controls by age and sex. We identified all medications utilized prior to diagnosis and analysed the association of each with CDI or GIB using conditional logistic regression adjusted for risk factors for the outcome and a high-dimensional propensity score.

FINDINGS

For the CDI study, we identified 55,137 cases, 220,543 controls, and 290 medications to analyse. Antibiotics with Gram-negative spectrum, including ciprofloxacin (aOR 2.83), ceftriaxone (aOR 2.65), and levofloxacin (aOR 1.60), were strongly associated. For the GIB study, we identified 450,315 cases, 1,801,260 controls, and 354 medications to analyse. Antiplatelets, anticoagulants, and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, including ticagrelor (aOR 2.81), naproxen (aOR 1.87), and rivaroxaban (aOR 1.31), were strongly associated.

INTERPRETATION

These studies demonstrate the generalizability and transportability of the PharmWAS pharmacovigilance framework. With additional validation, PharmWAS could complement traditional passive surveillance systems to identify medications that unexpectedly provoke or prevent high-impact conditions.

FUNDING

U.S. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.

Risk of Major Bleeding Associated with Concomitant Direct-Acting Oral Anticoagulant and Clopidogrel Use: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Combined anticoagulant-antiplatelet therapy is often indicated in adults with cardiovascular disease and atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism. The study aim was to assess the comparative risk of bleeding between rivaroxaban and apixaban when combined with clopidogrel.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of commercially insured US adults newly treated with a combination of rivaroxaban+clopidogrel or apixaban+clopidogrel (2015-2018) using Merative™ Marketscan Research Databases. We used propensity score-based inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) to balance the treatment groups. Weighted Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate the risk of major bleeding.

RESULTS

The study cohort included 2895 rivaroxaban+clopidogrel users and 3628 apixaban+clopidogrel users. The median (range) duration of follow up was 61 (73) days. Rivaroxaban+clopidogrel users had a similar risk of major bleeding compared with apixaban+clopidogrel users (IPTW incidence rate per 100 person-years 7.96 vs 7.38; IPTW hazard ratio [HR] 1.13 [95% CI 0.78-1.63]). In the subcohort of adults who were treated with DOAC or clopidogrel monotherapy prior to the combined therapy, the risk of major bleeding did not differ by the drug of monotherapy (IPTW HR for rivaroxaban+clopidogrel group: 0.66 [95% CI 0.33-1.32]; IPTW HR for apixaban+clopidogrel group: 1.10 [95% CI 0.55-2.23]) CONCLUSIONS: In our study of commercially insured US adults, the concomitant use of rivaroxaban+clopidogrel and apixaban+clopidogrel conferred a similar risk of major bleeding. DOAC versus clopidogrel monotherapy prior to the concomitant therapy did not influence the risk of major bleeding.

Risk factors for anticoagulant-associated gastrointestinal hemorrhage: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND/AIMS

There may be many predictors of anticoagulation-related gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB), but until now, systematic reviews and assessments of the certainty of the evidence have not been published. We conducted a systematic review to identify all risk factors for anticoagulant-associated GIB to inform risk prediction in the management of anticoagulation- related GIB.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to search PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases (from inception through January 21, 2022) using the following search terms: anticoagulants, heparin, warfarin, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, DOACs, gastrointestinal hemorrhage, risk factors. According to inclusion and exclusion criteria, studies of risk factors for anticoagulation-related GIB were identified. Risk factors for anticoagulant-associated GIB were used as the outcome index of this review.

RESULTS

We included 34 studies in our analysis. For anticoagulant-associated GIB, moderate-certainty evidence showed a probable association with older age, kidney disease, concomitant use of aspirin, concomitant use of the antiplatelet agent, heart failure, myocardial infarction, hematochezia, renal failure, coronary artery disease, helicobacter pylori infection, social risk factors, alcohol use, smoking, anemia, history of sleep apnea, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, international normalized ratio (INR), obesity et al. Some of these factors are not included in current GIB risk prediction models. such as anemia, co-administration of gemfibrozil, co-administration of verapamil or diltiazem, INR, heart failure, myocardial infarction, etc.

CONCLUSION

The study found that anemia, co-administration of gemfibrozil, co-administration of verapamil or diltiazem, INR, heart failure, myocardial infarction et al. were associated with anticoagulation-related GIB, and these factors were not in the existing prediction models. This study informs risk prediction for anticoagulant-associated GIB, it also informs guidelines for GIB prevention and future research.

Effectiveness and Safety of Different Oral Anticoagulants with P-glycoprotein/ CYP3A4 Inhibitors: A Network Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Metabolism of oral anticoagulants (OAC) is affected by P-glycoprotein (P-gp)/ CYP3A4 enzyme. However, the P-gp/CYP3A4 inhibitors are unavoidably used with OACs.

METHODS

Medline, Cochrane, and Embase were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials and cohort studies from inception till 23rd November, 2022 to assess the safety and effectiveness of OACs when concomitantly used with P-gp/CYP3A4 inhibitors. The primary outcomes were major bleeding and gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. Secondary outcomes were stroke/systemic embolism (SE), all-cause mortality, any bleeding as well as intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). We estimated summary odds ratios (OR) with 95% credible intervals (CI) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects.

RESULTS

A total of 11 studies involving 37,973 patients were included. When concomitantly used with P-pg/ CYP3A4 inhibitors, network meta-analysis indicated that dabigatran, apixaban, and edoxaban were associated with significantly lower risk of major bleeding compared to rivaroxaban, with ORs of 0.56, 0.51 and 0.48, respectively. Rivaroxaban and dabigatran were associated with a significantly increased risk of GI bleeding than warfarin, apixaban and edoxaban. Dabigatran and apixaban were linked with significantly lower risk of any bleeding compared with warfarin (ORs were 0.75 and 0.68, respectively) or rivaroxaban (ORs were 0.67 and 0.60, respectively). Apixaban (OR 0.32) and edoxaban (OR 0.35) were associated with a lower risk of ICH compared with warfarin. There was no difference between any OACs in terms of stroke/SE or all-cause mortality.

CONCLUSION

When concomitantly used with P-gp/CYP3A4 inhibitors, apixaban and edoxaban were associated with a lower risk of bleeding, though no significant difference in effectiveness was observed among all OACs.

Gastrointestinal bleeding with direct oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation and anaemia

INTRODUCTION

A high risk of gastrointestinal bleeding has been reported with the use of some direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). This risk may be of particular concern in individuals with associated anaemia. The aim of this study is to investigate potential differences in the risks of gastrointestinal bleeding and stroke among the four available DOACs in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and moderate or severe anaemia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All Danish patients diagnosed with incident AF who had a baseline haemoglobin measurement and subsequently initiated DOAC therapy between 2012 and 2021 were identified through administrative registries. Only patients with moderate or severe anaemia (N = 7269) were included and evaluated regarding the risk of hospitalization for gastrointestinal bleeding and stroke. Standardized absolute 1-year risks of stroke and gastrointestinal bleeding were calculated from multivariable Cox regression analyses. DOACs were compared pairwise RESULTS: Compared with apixaban, both dabigatran and rivaroxaban were associated with a significantly increased risk of gastrointestinal bleeding with standardized 1-year risk ratios of 1.73 (95 % confidence interval [CI], 1.10-2.35) and 1.56 (95 % CI, 1.18-1.93), respectively, while no significant difference was seen in the comparison of apixaban with edoxaban 1.32 (95 % CI, 0.41-2.32). No significant differences in gastrointestinal bleeding were observed with pairwise comparisons of dabigatran, rivaroxaban and edoxaban. Finally, no significant difference in stroke risk among the four DOACs was observed.

CONCLUSION

In AF patients with moderate or severe anaemia, apixaban was associated with a significantly lower risk of gastrointestinal bleeding than dabigatran and rivaroxaban. No significant difference in stroke risk was observed across all four available DOACs.

Effectiveness and safety of oral anticoagulants for non-valvular atrial fibrillation: a population-based cohort study in primary healthcare in Catalonia

Objectives: Our objective was to analyse effectiveness and safety of oral anticoagulants (OAC) for stroke prevention in non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Material and methods: Population-based cohort study including adults initiating oral anticoagulants, either direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) or vitamin K antagonists (VKA), during 2011-2020. Data source: SIDIAP, capturing information from the electronic health records of Primary Health Care in Catalonia, Spain. Study outcomes: stroke, cerebral and gastrointestinal (GI) haemorrhage, assessed by patients' subgroups according to different clinical characteristics. Results: We included 90,773 patients. Male sex, older than 75, previous event, peripheral artery disease, deep vein thrombosis, or receiving antiplatelets, antidiabetics or proton pump inhibitors (PPI) was associated with higher stroke risk. For DOAC-treated, treatment switch increased stroke risk, while being adherent had a protective effect. Men, antidiabetic treatment or a previous event increased the risk of cerebral bleeding. Receiving direct oral anticoagulants had a protective effect in comparison to vitamin K antagonists. For DOAC-treated, treatment switch increased, and adherence decreased the bleeding risk. Men, people with chronic kidney disease or a previous event posed an increased risk of gastrointestinal bleeding, whereas receiving PPI had a protective effect. For DOAC-treated, switch was associated with a higher bleeding risk. Conclusion: Being men, a previous event and DOAC-switch posed a higher risk for all study outcomes. direct oral anticoagulants had a protective effect against cerebral bleeding in comparison to vitamin K antagonists. Adherence to direct oral anticoagulants resulted in lower risk of stroke and cerebral bleeding. We found no differences in the risk of stroke and gastrointestinal bleeding when we compared direct oral anticoagulants vs. vitamin K antagonists.

Plasma Drug Values of DOACs in Patients Presenting with Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Prospective Observational Study

Background and Objectives: Anticoagulants are a well-known risk factor for gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB). In recent years, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have taken a leading role in the treatment and prevention of thromboembolic incidents. The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence of DOAC-treated patients with GIB whose plasma drug concentrations exceeded the cut-off values reported in the literature and to evaluate their clinical characteristics. Materials and Methods: Patients who were admitted to the Intensive Care Unit in the period 2/2020-3/2022 due to GIB were prospectively included in the study and classified into three groups according to the prescribed type of DOAC (apixaban, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran). For all participants, it was determined if the measured plasma drug levels exceeded the maximum serum concentration (Cmax) or trough serum concentration (Ctrough) obtained from the available data. A comparison of clinical parameters between the patients with and without excess drug values was performed. Results: There were 90 patients (54.4% men) included in the study, of whom 27 were treated with dabigatran, 24 with apixaban, and 39 with rivaroxaban. According to Cmax, there were 34 (37.8%), and according to Ctrough, there were 28 (31.1%) patients with excess plasma drug values. A statistically significant difference regarding excess plasma drug values was demonstrated between DOACs according to both Cmax (p = 0.048) and Ctrough (p < 0.001), with the highest rate in the group treated with dabigatran (55.6% for Cmax and 59.3% for Ctrough). Multivariate logistic regression showed that age (OR 1.177, p = 0.049) is a significant positive and glomerular filtration rate (OR 0.909, p = 0.016) is a negative predictive factor for excess plasma drug values. A total of six (6.7%) patients had fatal outcomes. Conclusions: Plasma drug concentrations exceed cut-off values reported in the literature in more than one-third of patients with GIB taking DOAC, with the highest rate in the dabigatran group. Clinicians should be more judicious when prescribing dabigatran to the elderly and patients with renal failure. In these patients, dose adjustment, plasma drug monitoring, or substitution with other, more appropriate DOACs should be considered.

A nomogram for predicting major gastrointestinal bleeding in patients treated with rivaroxaban

BACKGROUND

Rivaroxaban is a direct oral anticoagulant with the highest risk of anticoagulant-induced major gastrointestinal bleeding (MGIB). Currently, there is a lack of tools to identify patients at high risk of rivaroxaban-induced MGIB.

OBJECTIVE

To establish a nomogram model to predict the risk of MGIB in patients receiving rivaroxaban.

METHODS

Demographic information, comorbidities, concomitant medications, and laboratory test results were collected from 356 patients (178 diagnosed with MGIB) who were taking rivaroxaban between January 2013 and June 2021. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to identify the independent predictors of MGIB, and a nomogram was constructed based on these predictors. A receiver operating characteristic curve, Brier score, calibration plot, decision curve, and internal validation was used to evaluate the calibration, discrimination, and clinical usefulness of the nomogram.

RESULTS

Age, haemoglobin level, platelet count, creatinine level, prior peptic ulcer disease, prior bleeding, prior stroke, proton pump inhibitor use, and antiplatelet agent use were independent predictors of rivaroxaban-induced MGIB. These risk factors were used to establish the nomogram. The area under the curve of the nomogram was 0.833 (95%CI, 0.782-0.866), the Brier score was 0.171, the internal validation accuracy was 0.73, and the kappa value was 0.46.

CONCLUSION

The nomogram demonstrated good discrimination, calibration, and clinical applicability. Therefore, it could accurately predict the risk of MGIB in patients treated with rivaroxaban.

Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure in patients with gastrointestinal bleeding associated with oral anticoagulants

INTRODUCTION

Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) has shown non-inferiority compared to oral anticoagulation (OAC) in preventing atrial fibrillation (AF)-related stroke. The objective of this study was to assess whether LAAC reduces the incidence of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) and/or chronic anaemia associated with OAC, as well as the consumption of healthcare resources.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Prospective, single-center study from 2016 to 2022, LAAC was performed. Clinical, analytical and healthcare resource consumption data were collected (endoscopies, blood transfusions, hospital admissions) prior and 6 months after LAAC.

RESULTS

43 patients were included, with an average age of 77.6 years. LAAC indication was upper, low and obscure GIB in 7 (16%), 8 (19%) and 28 patients (65%) respectively. GIB source was intestinal angiodysplasias in 27 patients (63%), occult origin in 12 (28%), and others (antral vascular ectasia, portal hypertension gastropathy, etc.) in 4 patients (9%). The mean number of packed red blood cells per patient before LAAC was (mean ± SD) 7.29 ± 5 vs 0.42 ± 1.3 (p < 0.001); endoscopic procedures were 4.34 ± 2.85 vs 0.27 ± 0.76 (p < 0.001); and hospitalizations 2.67 ± 2.14 vs 0.03 ± 0.17 (p < 0.001), with a hospital stay of 21.5 ± 17.3 vs 0.09 ± 0.5 days (p < 0.001) at 6 months post-intervention. Haemoglobin value increased from 8.1 ± 1.2g/dl to 12.4 ± 2.2g/dl (p < 0.001) at 6 months. No thromboembolic events were registered during a median follow-up of 16.6 months (range 6-65).

CONCLUSIONS

LAAC could be a safe and effective alternative to OAC in patients with non-valvular AF presenting significant, recurrent or potentially unresolvable GIB. This intervention also leads to important savings in the consumption of healthcare resources.

Efficacy and Safety of Oral Anticoagulants in Older Adult Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: Pairwise and Network Meta-Analyses

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral anticoagulants for older adult patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).

DESIGN

Pairwise and network meta-analyses.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Patients with AF aged ≥75 years.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane library were searched for published randomized controlled trials and adjusted observational studies evaluating the use of a non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs), vitamin K antagonist, or antiplatelet drug for the prevention of stroke. The primary efficacy and safety outcomes were the composite of stroke and systemic embolism (SSE) and major bleedings.

RESULTS

This study included 38 studies enrolling 1,022,908 older adult patients with AF. Results from pairwise meta-analyses showed that NOACs were superior to warfarin for all outcomes, except that dabigatran increased the risk of gastrointestinal (GI) bleedings. Aspirin was associated with a higher risk of SSE and ischemic stroke than warfarin or NOACs. Results of network meta-analyses indicated that apixaban significantly reduced the risk of SSE, major bleedings, and GI bleedings than warfarin, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran. Apixaban, edoxaban, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran reduced the risk of ischemic stroke and intracranial bleeding compared to warfarin. Dabigatran showed lower risk of all-cause mortality than warfarin and of intracranial bleeding than rivaroxaban.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

NOACs are of at least equal efficacy, or even superior to warfarin. The safety profile of individual NOAC agents was significantly different, as apixaban performs better than the other oral anticoagulants in reducing major bleeding and GI bleeding, whereas dabigatran increased the risk of GI bleeding.

Management of Gastrointestinal Bleeding and Resumption of Oral Anticoagulant Therapy in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: A Multidisciplinary Discussion

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are recommended for the prevention of thromboembolism in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), and are now preferred over vitamin K antagonists due to their beneficial efficacy and safety profile. However, all oral anticoagulants carry a risk of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. Although the risk is well documented and acute bleeding well codified, there is limited high-quality evidence and no guidelines to guide physicians on the optimal management of anticoagulation after a GI bleeding event. The aim of this review is to provide a multidisciplinary critical discussion of the optimal management of GI bleeding in patients with AF receiving oral anticoagulants to help physicians provide individualized treatment for each patient and optimize outcomes. It is important to perform endoscopy when a patient presents with bleeding manifestations or hemodynamic instability to determine the bleed location and severity of bleeding and then perform initial resuscitation. Administration of all anticoagulants and antiplatelets should be stopped and bleeding allowed to resolve with time; however, anticoagulant reversal should be considered for patients who have life-threatening bleeding or when the bleeding is not controlled by the initial resuscitation. Anticoagulation needs to be timely resumed considering that bleeding risk outweighs thrombotic risk when anticoagulation is resumed early after the bleeding event. To prevent further bleeding, physicians should prescribe anticoagulant therapy with the lowest risk of GI bleeding, avoid medications with GI toxicity, and consider the effect of concomitant medications on potentiating the bleeding risk.

Challenges of Anticoagulant Therapy in Atrial Fibrillation-Focus on Gastrointestinal Bleeding

The rising prevalence and the complexity of atrial fibrillation (AF) pose major clinical challenges. Stroke prevention is accompanied by non-negligible risks, making anticoagulant treatment an ongoing challenge for the clinician. Current guidelines recommend direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) over warfarin for stroke prevention in most AF patients, mainly due to the ease of their use. However, assessing the bleeding risk in patients receiving oral anticoagulants remains-particularly in the case of DOACs-highly challenging. Using dose-adjusted warfarin increases threefold the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB). Although the overall bleeding risk appears to be lower, the use of DOACs has been associated with an increased risk of GIB compared to warfarin. Accurate bleeding (including GIB-specific) risk scores specific for DOACs remain to be developed. Until then, the assessment of bleeding risk factors remains the only available tool, although the extent to which each of these factors contributes to the risk of bleeding is unknown. In this paper, we aim to provide a comprehensive review of the bleeding risk associated with oral anticoagulant therapy in AF patients, with a highlight on the latest insights into GIB associated with oral anticoagulation; we emphasize questions that remain to be answered; and we identify hotspots for future research.

New score for predicting major bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation using direct oral anticoagulants

PURPOSE

Our aim was to identify factors associated with major bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) on direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and to construct and externally validate a predictive model that would provide a validated tool for clinical assessment of major bleeding.

METHODS

In the development cohort, prediction model was built by logistic regression, the area under the curve (AUC), and Nomogram. External validation, analytical identification and calibration of the model using AUC, calibration curves and Hosmer-Lemeshow test.

RESULTS

The development cohort consisted of 4209 patients from 7 centers and the external validation cohort consisted of 1800 patients from 12 centers. Multifactorial analysis showed that age > 65 years, history of bleeding, anemia, vascular disease, antiplatelet therapy/non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and rivaroxaban were independent risk factors for major bleeding, and gastrointestinal protective agents was a protective factor. The Alfalfa-MB model was constructed using these seven factors (AUC = 0.807), and in the external validation cohort, the model showed good discriminatory power (AUC = 0.743) and good calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow test P value of 0.205). The predictive power of the six bleeding scores was ORBIT (AUC = 0.706), HAS-BLED (AUC = 0.648), ATRIA (AUC = 0.645), HEMORR2 HAGES (AUC = 0.632), ABC (AUC = 0.619) and Shireman (AUC = 0.599) in descending order.

CONCLUSION

Based on 7 factors, we derived and externally validated a predictive model for major bleeding with DOACs in patients with AF (Alfalfa-MB). The model has good predictive value and may be an effective tool to help reduce the occurrence of major bleeding in patients with DOACs.

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Oral Anticoagulants by Dementia Status in Older Patients With Atrial Fibrillation

Importance

The development of an optimal stroke prevention strategy, including the use of oral anticoagulant (OAC) therapy, is particularly important for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who are living with dementia, a condition that increases the risk of adverse outcomes. However, data on the role of dementia in the safety and effectiveness of OACs are limited.

Objective

To assess the comparative safety and effectiveness of specific OACs by dementia status among older patients with AF.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective comparative effectiveness study used 1:1 propensity score matching among 1 160 462 patients 65 years or older with AF. Data were obtained from the Optum Clinformatics Data Mart (January 1, 2013, to June 30, 2021), IBM MarketScan Research Database (January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2020), and Medicare claims databases maintained by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (inpatient, outpatient, and pharmacy; January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2017). Data analysis was performed from September 1, 2021, to May 24, 2022.

Exposures

Apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or warfarin.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Composite end point of ischemic stroke or major bleeding events over the 6-month period after OAC initiation, pooled across databases using random-effects meta-analyses.

Results

Among 1 160 462 patients with AF, the mean (SD) age was 77.4 (7.2) years; 50.2% were male, 80.5% were White, and 7.9% had dementia. Three comparative new-user cohorts were established: warfarin vs apixaban (501 990 patients; mean [SD] age, 78.1 [7.4] years; 50.2% female), dabigatran vs apixaban (126 718 patients; mean [SD] age, 76.5 [7.1] years; 52.0% male), and rivaroxaban vs apixaban (531 754 patients; mean [SD] age, 76.9 [7.2] years; 50.2% male). Among patients with dementia, compared with apixaban users, a higher rate of the composite end point was observed in warfarin users (95.7 events per 1000 person-years [PYs] vs 64.2 events per 1000 PYs; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.5; 95% CI, 1.3-1.7), dabigatran users (84.5 events per 1000 PYs vs 54.9 events per 1000 PYs; aHR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2-2.0), and rivaroxaban users (87.4 events per 1000 PYs vs 68.5 events per 1000 PYs; aHR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1-1.5). In all 3 comparisons, the magnitude of the benefits associated with apixaban was similar regardless of dementia diagnosis on the HR scale but differed substantially on the rate difference (RD) scale. The adjusted RD of the composite outcome per 1000 PYs for warfarin vs apixaban users was 29.8 (95% CI, 18.4-41.1) events in patients with dementia vs 16.0 (95% CI, 13.6-18.4) events in patients without dementia. The corresponding adjusted RD estimates of the composite outcome were 29.6 (95% CI, 11.6-47.6) events per 1000 PYs in patients with dementia vs 5.8 (95% CI, 1.1-10.4) events per 1000 PYs in patients without dementia for dabigatran vs apixaban users and 20.5 (95% CI, 9.9-31.1) events per 1000 PYs in patients with dementia vs 15.9 (95% CI, 11.4-20.3) events per 1000 PYs in patients without dementia for rivaroxaban vs apixaban users. The pattern was more distinct for major bleeding than for ischemic stroke.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this comparative effectiveness study, apixaban was associated with lower rates of major bleeding and ischemic stroke compared with other OACs. The increased absolute risks associated with other OACs compared with apixaban were greater among patients with dementia than those without dementia, particularly for major bleeding. These findings support the use of apixaban for anticoagulation therapy in patients living with dementia who have AF.

No Association between Gastrointestinal Rebleeding and DOAC Therapy Resumption: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

There are recommendations for anticoagulation resumption after gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB), although data addressing this topic by direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs)-treated patients is lacking. We aim to determine the safety and efficacy of restarting DOACs after GIB.

METHODS

Studies that reported rebleeding, thromboembolic events, and mortality after restarting or withholding DOACs were selected. The systematic research was conducted in five databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Scopus). The random effect model was implemented to calculate the pooled odds ratio (OR). The ROBINS-I tool was used for risk of bias assessment, and the certainty of the evidence was evaluated with the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

Four retrospective cohort studies (1722 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. We did not find a significant increase in the risk of rebleeding in patients restarting DOACs after index GIB (OR = 1.12; 95% CI: 0.74-1.68). The outcomes of thromboembolic events and mortality data were not suitable for meta-analytic calculations. Single studies did not show statistically significant differences. Data quality assessment showed a serious overall risk of bias and very low quality of evidence (GRADE D).

CONCLUSION

DOAC resumption after a GIB episode may not elevate the risk of rebleeding. However, the need for high-quality randomized clinical trials is crucial.

Periprocedural Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Receiving a Direct Oral Anticoagulant Undergoing a Digestive Endoscopy

INTRODUCTION

The periprocedural management of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) using a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) undergoing elective gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedure remains uncertain. We investigated the safety of a standardized periprocedural DOAC management strategy.

METHODS

The Periprocedural Anticoagulation Use for Surgery Evaluation cohort study enrolled adult patients receiving a DOAC (apixaban, rivaroxaban, or dabigatran) for AF scheduled for an elective procedure or surgery. This analysis addresses patients undergoing digestive endoscopy. Standardized periprocedural management consisted of DOAC interruption 1 day preendoscopy with resumption 1 day after procedure at low-moderate risk of bleeding or 2 days in case of a high bleeding risk. Thirty-day outcomes included GI bleeding, thromboembolic events, and mortality.

RESULTS

Of 556 patients on a DOAC (mean [SD] age of 72.5 [8.6] years; 37.4% female; mean CHADS 2 score 1.7 [1.0]), 8.6% were also on American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) and 0.7% on clopidogrel. Most of the patients underwent colonoscopies (63.3%) or gastroscopies (14.0%), with 18.9% having both on the same procedural day. The mean total duration of DOAC interruption was 3.9 ± 1.6 days. Four patients experienced an arterial thromboembolic event (0.7%, 0.3%-1.8%) within 24.2 ± 5.9 days of DOAC interruption. GI bleeding events occurred in 2.5% (1.4%-4.2%) within 11.1 ± 8.1 days (range: 0.6; 25.5 days) of endoscopy, with major GI bleeding in 0.9% (0.4%-2.1%). Three patients died (0.5%; 0.2%-1.6%) 15.6-22.3 days after the endoscopy.

DISCUSSION

After a contemporary standardized periprocedural management strategy, patients with AF undergoing DOAC therapy interruption for elective digestive endoscopy experienced low rates of arterial thromboembolism and major bleeding.

Retrospective analysis of gastrointestinal bleedings with direct oral anticoagulants reported to EudraVigilance

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are increasingly used and are an important cornerstone in antithrombotic therapy. Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) such as bleedings have only partially been investigated during clinical trials. The primary goal was to analyse pharmacovigilance data based on spontaneous reports of gastrointestinal (GI) bleedings with DOACs reported to EudraVigilance. A second goal was to compare GI safety profiles between DOACs based on these signals. All DOAC related GI bleedings mentioned in individual case safety reports (ICSRs) from 2012 till 2017 in the European Economic Area were classified in four GI categories based on the reported site of occurrence of the haemorrhage. Age group and gender of the patient, seriousness and ADR outcome, and the reporter's qualification were assessed per category and per DOAC. Disproportionality analyses were performed to evaluate whether or not the reported ADRs were more prevalent with a given DOAC. ICSRs were bleeding-related in about half of the cases (n = 28,992/53,471). Of these bleedings,  >25% was GI-related. Most patients experiencing GI bleedings were between 65 and 85 years old, with no obvious differences between men and women. Stomach, ulcer-related duodenal, and rectal bleedings were the most reported GI bleedings with a fatal outcome in 5.8%, 7.5%, and 9.8% of the cases for rivaroxaban, apixaban, and dabigatran, respectively. The disproportionality data suggest that dabigatran is more frequently involved in GI bleeding events than the other DOACs. DOACs were significantly associated with GI bleedings. Although the data should be interpreted with caution, it seems that dabigatran was associated more often than other DOACs with GI bleedings based on the analysis of spontaneous pharmacovigilance reports.

Comparative differences in the risk of major gastrointestinal bleeding among different direct oral anticoagulants: An updated traditional and Bayesian network meta-analysis

Background: The most favorable gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding safety profile among different types of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) remains controversial. This meta-analysis includes the latest studies and aims to compare GI bleeding risk associated with the use of various DOACs. Methods: PubMed, Cochrane library, and clinicaltrial.gov were searched. Randomized control trials (RCTs) evaluating the safety of DOACs were identified. The primary endpoint assessed was major GI bleeding. Results: A total of 37 RCTs were included in the analyses. Based on the traditional meta-analysis, the major GI bleeding risk was different among various DOACs (interactive p-value <.10). Network meta-analysis findings showed that no DOACs increased the risk of major GI bleeding compared with conventional therapy. Furthermore, a 10 mg daily administration of apixaban reduced the major GI bleeding risk more than daily doses of 60 mg edoxaban, ≥15 mg rivaroxaban, and 300 mg dabigatran etexilate. No difference was observed between daily doses of 300 mg dabigatran etexilate, 60 mg edoxaban, and ≥15 mg rivaroxaban. The major GI bleeding risk associated with 30 mg daily dose of edoxaban was lower than with 10 mg daily rivaroxaban, and no differences between daily 5 mg apixaban, 30 mg edoxaban, and 220 mg dabigatran etexilate were observed. Conclusion: Differences in the major GI bleeding risk were observed when various DOACs were compared. Among standard-dose DOACs, apixaban was associated with the lowest degree of major GI risk. Among low-dose DOACs, edoxaban was associated with a lower major GI bleeding risk than rivaroxaban.

Risk and Management of Bleeding Complications with Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Venous Thromboembolism: a Narrative Review

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and venous thromboembolism (VTE) are highly prevalent conditions with a significant healthcare burden, and represent the main indications for anticoagulation. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are the first choice treatment of AF/VTE, and have become the most prescribed class of anticoagulants globally, overtaking vitamin K antagonists (VKAs). Compared to VKAs, DOACs have a similar or better efficacy/safety profile, with reduced risk of intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), while the risk of major bleeding and other bleeding harms may vary depending on the type of DOAC. We have critically reviewed available evidence from randomized controlled trials and observational studies regarding the risk of bleeding complications of DOACs compared to VKAs in patients with AF and VTE. Special patient populations (e.g., elderly, extreme body weights, chronic kidney disease) have specifically been addressed. Management of bleeding complications and possible resumption of anticoagulation, in particular after ICH and gastrointestinal bleeding, are also discussed. Finally, some suggestions are provided to choose the optimal DOAC to minimize adverse events according to individual patient characteristics and bleeding risk.

Gastrointestinal Bleeding Due to NOACs Use: Exploring the Molecular Mechanisms

Novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are drugs approved for the prevention and treatment of many thromboembolic cardiovascular conditions as a safer alternative to warfarin. We reviewed studies published in PubMed^®, UpToDate^®, Web of Science^®, and Cochrane^® about NOACs' risks and benefits in patients requiring anticoagulation, with a focus on gastrointestinal bleeding and on molecular and pathophysiological mechanisms underlying the risk of bleeding in patients treated with them. Apixaban resulted in a lower rate of gastrointestinal bleeding compared to dabigatran and rivaroxaban. However, data reported that gastrointestinal bleeding in patients treated with NOACs was less severe compared to warfarin. Studies show promising results on the increased and widespread use of NOACs in patients who require anticoagulation (for example-in case of atrial fibrillation or high risk of venous thromboembolism), reporting an overall lower risk of major bleeding events. The profile of NOACs was more effective and secure compared to warfarin, but a more careful medical prescription is required in patients who are at high risk of gastrointestinal bleeding.

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety Between Apixaban, Dabigatran, Edoxaban, and Rivaroxaban Among Patients With Atrial Fibrillation : A Multinational Population-Based Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend using direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) over warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), but head-to-head trial data do not exist to guide the choice of DOAC.

OBJECTIVE

To do a large-scale comparison between all DOACs (apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban) in routine clinical practice.

DESIGN

Multinational population-based cohort study.

SETTING

Five standardized electronic health care databases, which covered 221 million people in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients who were newly diagnosed with AF from 2010 through 2019 and received a new DOAC prescription.

MEASUREMENTS

Database-specific hazard ratios (HRs) of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism, intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB), and all-cause mortality between DOACs were estimated using a Cox regression model stratified by propensity score and pooled using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

A total of 527 226 new DOAC users met the inclusion criteria (apixaban, n = 281 320; dabigatran, n = 61 008; edoxaban, n = 12 722; and rivaroxaban, n = 172 176). Apixaban use was associated with lower risk for GIB than use of dabigatran (HR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.70 to 0.94]), edoxaban (HR, 0.77 [CI, 0.66 to 0.91]), or rivaroxaban (HR, 0.72 [CI, 0.66 to 0.79]). No substantial differences were observed for other outcomes or DOAC-DOAC comparisons. The results were consistent for patients aged 80 years or older. Consistent associations between lower GIB risk and apixaban versus rivaroxaban were observed among patients receiving the standard dose (HR, 0.72 [CI, 0.64 to 0.82]), those receiving a reduced dose (HR, 0.68 [CI, 0.61 to 0.77]), and those with chronic kidney disease (HR, 0.68 [CI, 0.59 to 0.77]).

LIMITATION

Residual confounding is possible.

CONCLUSION

Among patients with AF, apixaban use was associated with lower risk for GIB and similar rates of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism, ICH, and all-cause mortality compared with dabigatran, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban. This finding was consistent for patients aged 80 years or older and those with chronic kidney disease, who are often underrepresented in clinical trials.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

None.

Gastrointestinal Bleeding on Oral Anticoagulation: What is Currently Known

Gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is the most common type of bleeding occurring in patients on oral anticoagulation. A meta-analysis of the landmark randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for patients with atrial fibrillation demonstrated that direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) were associated with higher GIB rates compared to warfarin. However, significant heterogeneity existed between studies. While rivaroxaban, high-dose dabigatran, and high-dose edoxaban were associated with higher GIB rates than warfarin, GIB rates were similar between warfarin users and both apixaban and low-dose dabigatran users. Additionally, previous observational studies have yielded conflicting reports on whether GIB rates differ between warfarin and DOACs. Meta-analyses of observational studies demonstrated that warfarin is associated with lower rates of GIB compared to rivaroxaban, similar or lower rates compared to dabigatran, and higher rates compared to apixaban. Importantly, no RCT has compared individual DOACs directly and due to the different selection criteria of the initial RCTs, indirect comparisons between DOACs using these studies are unreliable. The best available information of comparisons between individual DOACs is therefore limited to observational studies. There is mounting evidence that suggests that rivaroxaban is associated with a higher risk of GIB compared to other DOACs. Finally, GIB induced by oral anticoagulation may have some positive aspects. Interestingly, there are studies that indicate oral anticoagulation facilitates colorectal cancer detection. Furthermore, results from RCTs and observational studies suggest that warfarin may even decrease the incidence of cancer.

Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation: A Scientific Statement of JACC: Asia (Part 2)

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia and is associated with substantial increases in the risk for stroke and systemic thromboembolism. With the successful introduction of the first non-vitamin K antagonistdirect oral anticoagulant agent (NOAC) in 2009, the role of vitamin K antagonists has been replaced in most clinical settings except in a few conditions for which NOACs are contraindicated. Data for the use of NOACs in different clinical scenarios have been accumulating in the past decade, and a more sophisticated strategy for patients with AF is now warranted. JACC: Asia recently appointed a working group to summarize the most updated information regarding stroke prevention in AF. The aim of this statement is to provide possible treatment options in daily practice. Local availability, cost, and patient comorbidities should also be considered. Final decisions may still need to be individualized and based on clinicians' discretion. This is part 2 of the statement.

Moderne Antikoagulation mit FXa-Inhibitoren in der Onkologie: Ist die gastrointestinale Blutungsrate (mit)-entscheidend?

Das erhöhte Thrombose- und Blutungsrisiko bei aktiver Tumorerkrankung wird als sog. „thrombo-hämorrhagisches Syndrom“ bezeichnet, welches hohe Anforderungen an die Antikoagulation stellt. Aktuell liegen 4 randomisierte, prospektive Studien zum Einsatz von neuen, nicht Vitamin K-abhängigen oralen Antikoagulantien (NOAK) zur Behandlung von in der Onkologie aufgetretenen venösen Thromboembolien (VTE) vor. Dabei wurden die FXa-Inhibitoren Rivaroxaban, Edoxaban und zweimal Apixaban jeweils in einzelnen Studien gegenüber dem Standardtherapeutikum Dalteparin eingesetzt. Da es keinen direkten Head-to-Head-Vergleich der genannten FXa-Inhibitoren innerhalb einer Studie gibt, wurde zu jedem NOAK die jeweils größte Studie – stets verglichen gegenüber Dalteparin – ausgewertet. Die Studien wurden bzgl. ihrer Wirksamkeit, Sicherheit, fataler Blutungsraten, dem Risiko für gastrointestinale Blutungen (GIB) und sonstiger Unterschiede anhand deskriptiver Statistik analysiert. Unter Dalteparin ergab sich eine mittlere VTE-Rezidivrate von ca. 9% bei einem 6-monatigen Behandlungszeitraum. Alle 3 FXa-Inhibitoren waren gegenüber Dalteparin bezüglich der Wirksamkeit nicht unterlegen. Die VTE-Rezidivrate war bei mit Edoxaban und Apixaban behandelten Patienten um – 2,3% und bei Rivaroxaban um – 5,0% niedriger.

Bei der Sicherheit fanden sich – jeweils gegenüber Dalteparin – für Rivaroxaban und Edoxaban eine erhöhte Rate an schweren Blutungen (jeweils +2,4%); insbesondere war hierbei die Zahl GIB deutlich erhöht. Dagegen war für Apixaban die Zahl schwerer Blutungen, wie auch für verschiedene Blutungstypen inkl. GIB, nicht erhöht. In der Apixabanstudie war insgesamt die Rate von schweren GIB, die ca. 50% aller schweren Blutungen ausmachten, und die der klinisch-relevanten nicht schweren Blutungen, am niedrigsten. Die FXa-Inhibitoren sind der Standardtherapie mit Dalteparin in der VTE-Rezidivrate bei onkologischen Patienten nicht unterlegen. Die GIB-Rate scheint ein wichtiger prädiktiver Faktor für die Sicherheit dieser Substanzgruppe zu sein, sodass Tumorlokalisation, gastrointestinale Risikofaktoren und andere individuelle Kriterien in Zukunft stärker bei der Therapieentscheidung für oder gegen einen FXa-Inhibitor berücksichtigt werden sollten.

Effectiveness and Safety of Apixaban in over 3.9 Million People with Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: There is a plethora of real-world data on the safety and effectiveness of direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs); however, study heterogeneity has contributed to inconsistent findings. We compared the effectiveness and safety of apixaban with those of other direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and vitamin K antagonists (VKA e.g., warfarin). Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted retrieving data from PubMed, SCOPUS and Web of Science from January 2009 to December 2021. Studies that evaluated apixaban (intervention) prescribed for adults (aged 18 years or older) with AF for stroke prevention compared to other DOACs or VKAs were identified. Primary outcomes included stroke/systemic embolism (SE), all-cause mortality, and major bleeding. Secondary outcomes were intracranial haemorrhage (ICH) and ischaemic stroke. Randomised controlled trials and non-randomised trials were considered for inclusion. Results: In total, 67 studies were included, and 38 studies were meta-analysed. Participants taking apixaban had significantly lower stroke/SE compared to patients taking VKAs (relative risk (RR) 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64–0.93, I² = 94%) and dabigatran (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74–0.95, I² = 66%), but not to patients administered rivaroxaban. There was no statistical difference in mortality between apixaban and VKAs or apixaban and dabigatran. Compared to patients administered rivaroxaban, participants taking apixaban had lower mortality rates (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.71–0.96, I² = 96%). Apixaban was associated with a significantly lower risk of major bleeding compared to VKAs (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.52–0.65, I² = 90%), dabigatran (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.70–0.88, I² = 78%) and rivaroxaban (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.53–0.70, I² = 87%). Conclusions: Apixaban was associated with a better overall safety and effectiveness profile compared to VKAs and other DOACs.

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Rivaroxaban and Warfarin for Stroke Prevention in Patients with Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation in an Omani Tertiary Care Hospital

Objective:

The aim of the study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of rivaroxaban and warfarin as well as to determine the appropriateness of dosing and prescribing of rivaroxaban in Omani patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF).

Methods:

This retrospective cohort study was conducted using the Royal Hospital data registry. The study included all adults newly diagnosed with NVAF and treated with rivaroxaban or warfarin. The outcomes measured include ischaemic stroke, gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB), non-gastrointestinal bleeding (NGIB), as well as appropriateness of dosing and prescribing of rivaroxaban.

Results:

The analysis included 96 rivaroxaban users and 183 warfarin users; 51% of the cohort included males. There were no significant differences observed in the risk of ischaemic stroke between the two groups (hazard ratio (HR), 1.1; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.4-3.4; p=0.8). However, those on rivaroxaban exhibited a significantly higher rate of GIB compared to those on warfarin (HR, 5.9; 95% CI: 2.9-11.7; p=0.001). There were no differences observed with regards to NGIB between the two groups (HR, 0.9; 95% CI: 0.4-1.9; p=0.8). Dosing and prescribing of rivaroxaban were found to be appropriate in 89% of the patients, with only 6% being prescribed an inappropriately lower dose.

Conclusion:

The study demonstrated no significant differences in the risk of ischaemic stroke or NGIB between rivaroxaban and warfarin groups in newly diagnosed NVAF patients. However, rivaroxaban users were found to have a significantly higher risk of GIB. Rivaroxaban was appropriately prescribed to the majority of the patients, and only a small proportion of the group received an inappropriately lower dose of rivaroxaban.

Incident peptic ulcers and concomitant treatment of direct oral anticoagulants and oral bisphosphonates-a real-world cohort study

Oral bisphosphonates and direct oral anticoagulants are related to upper gastrointestinal ulcers. The present study investigated whether concomitant use of these drugs increase the risk of upper gastrointestinal ulcers and report no increased risk of upper gastrointestinal ulcers compared to the use of either drug alone, when individuals with previous upper gastrointestinal ulcers are excluded.

INTRODUCTION

This study examines whether concomitant use of oral bisphosphonates (oBP) and direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) increases the risk of peptic ulcers more than any drug alone.

METHODS

A population-based cohort study was performed. We sampled a cohort of oBP and DOAC users from a sample of 2,622,742 individuals, consisting of diabetes patients and age- and gender-matched controls, obtained from the Danish National Patient Register. The exposures were concomitant use of oBP and DOAC and single use of DOAC and single use of oBP. The primary endpoint was the first incident peptic ulcer. Information on exposure and outcome were collected from national registries. The period of observation was from 01.01.2008 until 31.12.2018. Unadjusted and adjusted Cox regressions were performed.

RESULTS

8077 individuals received concomitant treatment with DOAC and oBP; 96,451 individuals used DOAC and no oBP; and 118,675 used oBP and no DOAC. The mean duration of follow-up was 1.9 years for concomitant users, 2.5 years for DOAC users, and 4.5 years for oBP users. A total of 4742 individuals with incident peptic ulcers were collected. We observed an increased risk of incident ulcer in users of DOAC and oBP compared to single DOAC treatment in the adjusted analysis (HR = 1.23, 95% CI: 1.03; 1.48). However, the effects were abolished when excluding individuals with a previous ulcer. We observed an increased risk of incident ulcer in users of DOAC and oBP compared to users of oBP in the adjusted model (HR = 1.34, 95% CI: 1.11; 1.63).

CONCLUSION

Based on our results, concomitant use of oBP and DOAC is associated with a slight increase in the risk of peptic ulcers compared to either drug alone. The prescribing physician should weigh the slight increased risk of ulcer in concomitant users of oBP and DOAC with beneficial reductions in stroke and fractures.

Factor XI Inhibitors for Prevention and Treatment of Venous Thromboembolism: A Review on the Rationale and Update on Current Evidence

Although anticoagulation therapy has evolved from non-specific drugs (i.e., heparins and vitamin K antagonists) to agents that directly target specific coagulation factors (i.e., direct oral anticoagulants, argatroban, fondaparinux), thrombosis remains a leading cause of death worldwide. Direct oral anticoagulants (i.e., factor IIa- and factor Xa-inhibitors) now dominate clinical practice because of their favorable pharmacological profile and ease of use, particularly in venous thromboembolism (VTE) treatment and stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation. However, despite having a better safety profile than vitamin K antagonists, their bleeding risk is not insignificant. This is true for all currently available anticoagulants, and a high bleeding risk is considered a contraindication to anticoagulation. As a result, ongoing research focuses on developing future anticoagulants with an improved safety profile. Several promising approaches to reduce the bleeding risk involve targeting the intrinsic (or contact activation) pathway of coagulation, with the ultimate goal of preventing thrombosis without impairing hemostasis. Based on epidemiological data on hereditary factor deficiencies and preclinical studies factor XI (FXI) emerged as the most promising candidate target. In this review, we highlight unmet clinical needs of anticoagulation therapy, outlay the rationale and evidence for inhibiting FXI, discuss FXI inhibitors in current clinical trials, conduct an exploratory meta-analysis on their efficacy and safety, and provide an outlook on the potential clinical application of these novel anticoagulants.

EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines on prevention and management of bleeding and thrombosis in patients with cirrhosis

The prevention and management of bleeding and thrombosis in patients with cirrhosis poses several difficult clinical questions. These Clinical Practice Guidelines have been developed to provide practical guidance on debated topics, including current views on haemostasis in liver disease, controversy regarding the need to correct thrombocytopenia and abnormalities in the coagulation system in patients undergoing invasive procedures, and the need for thromboprophylaxis in hospitalised patients with haemostatic abnormalities. Multiple recommendations in this document are based on interventions that the panel feels are not useful, even though widely applied in clinical practice.

Anticoagulant and Antiplatelet Therapy in Periprocedural Period of Elective Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents are widely used drugs for cardiovascular prevention and reducing the risk of thromboembolic events. Gastrointestinal bleeding represents a serious complication of their use. Gastrointestinal endoscopy is related to bleeding risk – there is bleeding risk stratification according to endoscopic procedures (high- and low-risk ones). Treatment with antithrombotic drugs in the periprocedural endoscopic period is based on balancing the bleeding risk against the thromboembolic risk. Antithrombotic agents in endoscopic procedures with lower bleeding risk are not needed to be withheld. It is recommended temporary discontinuation of antithrombotic treatment in high-risk endoscopic procedures and to consider the use of “bridging” therapy with LWMH for patients on Vitamin K antagonists who are at high thrombotic risk. Evaluating cardiovascular risk and management of antithrombotic therapy could be a challenge for gastrointestinal endoscopists, therefore, collaboration with a cardiologist is of great importance, at least for some patients.

American College of Gastroenterology-Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Clinical Practice Guideline: Management of Anticoagulants and Antiplatelets During Acute Gastrointestinal Bleeding and the Periendoscopic Period

We conducted systematic reviews of predefined clinical questions and used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach to develop recommendations for the periendoscopic management of anticoagulant and antiplatelet drugs during acute gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and the elective endoscopic setting. The following recommendations target patients presenting with acute GI bleeding: For patients on warfarin, we suggest against giving fresh frozen plasma or vitamin K; if needed, we suggest prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) compared with fresh frozen plasma administration; for patients on direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), we suggest against PCC administration; if on dabigatran, we suggest against the administration of idarucizumab, and if on rivaroxaban or apixaban, we suggest against andexanet alfa administration; for patients on antiplatelet agents, we suggest against platelet transfusions; and for patients on cardiac acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) for secondary prevention, we suggest against holding it, but if the ASA has been interrupted, we suggest resumption on the day hemostasis is endoscopically confirmed. The following recommendations target patients in the elective (planned) endoscopy setting: For patients on warfarin, we suggest continuation as opposed to temporary interruption (1-7 days), but if it is held for procedures with high risk of GI bleeding, we suggest against bridging anticoagulation unless the patient has a mechanical heart valve; for patients on DOACs, we suggest temporarily interrupting rather than continuing these; for patients on dual antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention, we suggest temporary interruption of the P2Y12 receptor inhibitor while continuing ASA; and if on cardiac ASA monotherapy for secondary prevention, we suggest against its interruption. Evidence was insufficient in the following settings to permit recommendations. With acute GI bleeding in patients on warfarin, we could not recommend for or against PCC administration when compared with placebo. In the elective periprocedural endoscopy setting, we could not recommend for or against temporary interruption of the P2Y12 receptor inhibitor for patients on a single P2Y12 inhibiting agent. We were also unable to make a recommendation regarding same-day resumption of the drug vs 1-7 days after the procedure among patients prescribed anticoagulants (warfarin or DOACs) or P2Y12 receptor inhibitor drugs because of insufficient evidence.

Direct oral anticoagulants are associated with potentially bleeding lesions in suspected mid-gastrointestinal bleeding

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) became a widespread alternative in anticoagulant therapy. Nevertheless, concerns are raised about their safety, with increased gastrointestinal bleeding rates being described. There are scarce studies regarding DOACs effect on small-bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) findings. We aimed to assess if the detection of lesions with high bleeding potential on SBCE was significantly different in patients treated with DOACs when compared to non-anticoagulated patients and to patients anticoagulated with other agents.

METHODS

Cohort study including consecutive patients who underwent SBCE for suspected mid-gastrointestinal bleeding (MGIB) in 2019 and 2020.

RESULTS

From 148 patients, 38 (25.7%) were anticoagulated, of which 26 (68.4%) with DOACs. P2 lesions were detected in 36.5% (n = 54) of the patients. These lesions were more frequently detected in patients under DOACs treatment when compared to non-anticoagulated patients (69.2% vs. 29.1%; p=.001), and also when compared to patients treated with other anticoagulants (69.2% vs. 33.3%; p=.037). No differences in P2 lesions detection were observed between patients treated with other anticoagulants and non-anticoagulated patients (33.3% vs. 29.1%; p=.747). In multivariate analysis, DOACs usage was significantly associated with higher detection rates of P2 lesions on SBCE, when adjusted for classical risk factors for MGIB (OR: 3.38; 95%CI = 1.23-9.26; p=.018).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite their undeniable cardiovascular benefits and easy applicability, DOACs should still be considered with caution. These drugs were significantly associated with higher risk of potentially bleeding lesions on SBCE when compared to other anticoagulants and represent an independent risk factor for MGIB when adjusted for other variables.

American College of Gastroenterology-Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Clinical Practice Guideline: Management of Anticoagulants and Antiplatelets During Acute Gastrointestinal Bleeding and the Periendoscopic Period

We conducted systematic reviews of predefined clinical questions and used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach to develop recommendations for the periendoscopic management of anticoagulant and antiplatelet drugs during acute gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and the elective endoscopic setting. The following recommendations target patients presenting with acute GI bleeding: For patients on warfarin, we suggest against giving fresh frozen plasma or vitamin K; if needed, we suggest prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) compared with fresh frozen plasma administration; for patients on direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), we suggest against PCC administration; if on dabigatran, we suggest against the administration of idarucizumab, and if on rivaroxaban or apixaban, we suggest against andexanet alfa administration; for patients on antiplatelet agents, we suggest against platelet transfusions; and for patients on cardiac acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) for secondary prevention, we suggest against holding it, but if the ASA has been interrupted, we suggest resumption on the day hemostasis is endoscopically confirmed. The following recommendations target patients in the elective (planned) endoscopy setting: For patients on warfarin, we suggest continuation as opposed to temporary interruption (1-7 days), but if it is held for procedures with high risk of GI bleeding, we suggest against bridging anticoagulation unless the patient has a mechanical heart valve; for patients on DOACs, we suggest temporarily interrupting rather than continuing these; for patients on dual antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention, we suggest temporary interruption of the P2Y12 receptor inhibitor while continuing ASA; and if on cardiac ASA monotherapy for secondary prevention, we suggest against its interruption. Evidence was insufficient in the following settings to permit recommendations. With acute GI bleeding in patients on warfarin, we could not recommend for or against PCC administration when compared with placebo. In the elective periprocedural endoscopy setting, we could not recommend for or against temporary interruption of the P2Y12 receptor inhibitor for patients on a single P2Y12 inhibiting agent. We were also unable to make a recommendation regarding same-day resumption of the drug vs 1-7 days after the procedure among patients prescribed anticoagulants (warfarin or DOACs) or P2Y12 receptor inhibitor drugs because of insufficient evidence.

Management of Antiplatelet and Anticoagulant Agents before and after Polypectomy

Antithrombotic medications, including antiplatelet drugs and anticoagulants, are widely prescribed to prevent thromboembolic disease. There is limited evidence informing gastroenterologists of the management of patients on antithrombotic medications undergoing colonoscopy and polypectomy. A patient's risk of thromboembolism versus postpolypectomy bleeding should be carefully considered, incorporating patient preferences concerning benefits and harms of temporary antithrombotic interruption. We will review the available consensus guidelines, current literature, and strategies to mitigate the risk of bleeding following polypectomy. These will be interpreted in the framework of shared decision-making with the patient to arrive at the safest solution best aligned with the patient's preferences.

Contemporary clinical and economic outcomes among oral anticoagulant treated and untreated elderly patients with atrial fibrillation: Insights from the United States Medicare database

Background

Oral anticoagulants (OACs) mitigate the risk of stroke in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients.

Objective

Elderly AF patients who were treated with OACs (apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, rivaroxaban, or warfarin) were compared against AF patients who were not treated with OACs with respect to their clinical and economic outcomes.

Methods

Newly diagnosed AF patients were identified between January 2013 and December 2017 in the Medicare database. Evidence of an OAC treatment claim on or after the first AF diagnosis was used to classify patients into treatment-defined cohorts, and these cohorts were further stratified based on the initial OAC prescribed. The risks of stroke/systemic embolism (SE), major bleeding (MB), and death were analyzed using inverse probability treatment weighted time-dependent Cox regression models, and costs were compared with marginal structural models.

Results

The two treatment groups were composed of 1,421,187 AF patients: OAC treated (N = 583,350, 41.0% [36.4% apixaban, 4.9% dabigatran, 0.1% edoxaban, 26.7% rivaroxaban, and 31.9% warfarin patients]) and untreated (N = 837,837, 59.0%). OAC-treated patients had a lower adjusted risk of stroke/SE compared to untreated patients (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.68–0.72). Additionally patients receiving OACs had a lower adjusted risk of death (HR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.55–0.56) and a higher risk of MB (HR: 1.57; 95% CI: 1.54–1.59) and this trend was consistent across each OAC sub-group. The OAC-treated cohort had lower adjusted total healthcare costs per patient per month ($4,381 vs $7,172; p < .0001).

Conclusion

For the OAC-treated cohort in this elderly US population, stroke/SE and all-cause death were lower, while risk of MB was higher. Among OAC treated patients, total healthcare costs were lower than those of the untreated cohort.

Restarting Warfarin vs Direct Oral Anticoagulants After Major Gastrointestinal Bleeding and Associated Outcomes in Atrial Fibrillation: A Cohort Study

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Limited data exist on the management of anticoagulation after hospitalization for gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) and the risks of recurrent GIB and thromboembolism in patients who are prescribed warfarin vs direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). The purpose of this study was to assess the risk of recurrent GIB and thromboembolism with resumption of anticoagulation after GIB.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of adults with atrial fibrillation prescribed warfarin or DOACs and subsequently hospitalized for GIB. We used claims data from IBM MarketScan Databases from January 2008 through December 2017. Multivariable time-varying regression was used to determine the risks of recurrent GIB and thromboembolism within 6 months of the index hospitalization.

RESULTS

There were 2991 patients hospitalized for GIB on anticoagulants (warfarin, n = 1872; rivaroxaban, n = 676; dabigatran, n = 293; and apixaban, n = 250). Of warfarin users, 46% (n = 869) resumed warfarin after discharge compared with 43% (n = 483) of DOAC users who resumed DOACs. In the regression analysis modeling time-varying coefficients for anticoagulant use, warfarin resumption was associated with an increased risk of recurrent GIB (hazard ratio [HR], 2.12; 95% CI, 1.43-3.14; P = .0002) compared with no anticoagulant resumption, whereas there was no association with DOAC resumption and recurrent bleeding (HR, 1.43; 95% CI, 0.81-2.52; P = .22). Rivaroxaban was the only individual DOAC that was associated with recurrent GIB (HR, 2.73; 95% CI, 1.43-5.20; P = .002). Both warfarin (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.39-0.96; P = .033) and DOAC (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.28-0.98; P = .044) resumption as a class was associated with a decreased risk of thromboembolism.

CONCLUSIONS

Either warfarin or DOAC resumption after hospitalization for GIB was associated with a decreased risk of thromboembolism, whereas warfarin and rivaroxaban resumption were associated with an increased risk of recurrent GIB.